When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

[istodolez]

And at some point the size of the uncertainty renders any interpretation based on the data almost useless.

Then it is incumbent upon you to show exactly which ones.


Why is this such a hard concept? Creationists debate against science by blanket decrees that this or that paleo-data has too large an error bar to draw any meaningful conclusion. Of course that's utter BS. Yes there's uncertainty but you can't make blanket decrees about all the data in an entire field of legitimate science.

Honestly I took you for being far more savvy on this.

 

[longview]

Then it is incumbent upon you to show exactly which ones.


Why is this such a hard concept? Creationists debate against science by blanket decrees that this or that paleo-data has too large an error bar to draw any meaningful conclusion. Of course that's utter BS. Yes there's uncertainty but you can't make blanket decrees about all the data in an entire field of legitimate science.

Honestly I took you for being far more savvy on this.

My example is fine! If we cannot tell within a few degrees C, or within a few decades on ether side of 3000BCE, what the temperature was, how can we accurately say our current temperature change is unusual ?

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry, I thought you had advanced degrees. My bad.

Because I won't treat a debate forum and 101 information as a peer reviewed paper. Yes, you caught me.

Now go learn the answer to the question in the thread title.

 

[istodolez]

My example is fine!

Show me that data please.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach." The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.”

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

Yes, so? The Mid-Holocene Warm Period was about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.

And the Nature article it references says: "The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago."

Why do you continue to deny science, when the facts are right in front of you?

 

[watsup]

Yes, so? The Mid-Holocene Warm Period was about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.

And the Nature article it references says: "The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago."

Why do you continue to deny science, when the facts are right in front of you?

The science is quoted in my post. Why do you continue to deny it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The science is quoted in my post. Why do you continue to deny it?

What am I denying? I am pointing out that what we see for warming now, also occurred during the Mid-Holocene Warm Period. What civilization did we have back then emitting enough CO2 to cause that warming, if you are going to claim that what we have now cannot be natural?

 

[iguanaman]

Why are you guys so lazy? You rely on journalists to tell you what the science says instead of the scientists through their papers. What about the Mid-Holocene Warm Period? Why did they limit it to the last 2,000 years instead of the entire interglacial period?

That article at least refers to two papers:

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - Nature Geoscience

Multidecadal global-mean temperature fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are consistent in comprehensive climate reconstructions and model simulations, and volcanic eruptions had the most important influence at that timescale between 1300 and 1800 CE.

www.nature.com

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era - Nature

Warm and cold periods over the past 2,000 years have not occurred at the same time in all geographical locations, with the exception of the twentieth century, during which warming has occurred almost everywhere.

www.nature.com

If you read them, you see that are doing the same controversial combinations of proxy data and thermometer data. I'll lay odds that 200 years from now, the proxy data of today will not show it was warm as out thermometers across the world do.

Why you ask? Because none of the meteorologic stations are immune for the growing heat of land change uses nearby. There is no proper way to correct for them. And on top of that, there is data that shows we were warmer about

Keep in mind, as the ice on Greenland is receding, we are finding villages that have been covered. Are we to believe that it wasn't warmer when they were farming the land, that is now under ice?

Speaking of lazy, you were to lazy to even read my link before making a fool of yourself. There is new evidence that those warm periods were REGIONAL unlike today where the entire Earth has warmed rapidly.

A groundbreaking study led by Raphael Neukom of the University of Bern investigated the scope of natural warming and cooling events experienced by the planet since the start of the Common Era two millennia ago. These include the famous Little Ice Age between the years 1300 and 1850 CE; the Medieval Warm Period between about 800 and 1200 CE; the Late Antique Little Ice Age between 400 and 800 CE; and the Roman Warm Period in the first 400 years of the Common Era. The paper was published yesterday in Nature.

These periods were first identified in specific regions of the world. The Little Ice Age, for instance, was originally used to describe a pattern of expanding glaciers in parts of the western United States and the European alps. Gradually, though, they’ve come to describe the hypothesis that these periods weren’t just limited to narrow geographic locations but may have actually occurred uniformly on a global scale.

But the new study finds that this wasn’t actually the case.

 

[iguanaman]

And at some point the size of the uncertainty renders any interpretation based on the data almost useless.

But you have no problem saying you know better because it fits your bias.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Speaking of lazy, you were to lazy to even read my link before making a fool of yourself. There is new evidence that those warm periods were REGIONAL unlike today where the entire Earth has warmed rapidly.

A groundbreaking study led by Raphael Neukom of the University of Bern investigated the scope of natural warming and cooling events experienced by the planet since the start of the Common Era two millennia ago. These include the famous Little Ice Age between the years 1300 and 1850 CE; the Medieval Warm Period between about 800 and 1200 CE; the Late Antique Little Ice Age between 400 and 800 CE; and the Roman Warm Period in the first 400 years of the Common Era. The paper was published yesterday in Nature.

These periods were first identified in specific regions of the world. The Little Ice Age, for instance, was originally used to describe a pattern of expanding glaciers in parts of the western United States and the European alps. Gradually, though, they’ve come to describe the hypothesis that these periods weren’t just limited to narrow geographic locations but may have actually occurred uniformly on a global scale.

But the new study finds that this wasn’t actually the case.

Why are you being lazy and blind to the fact I am pointing out the studies you guys are championing only go back 2,000 years. I'm going back farther. I am pointing out that between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer. No coal plants, no SUV's etc; but warmer. I'm not claiming the last 2,000 years as wrong, though yes I see indications it can be. Especially since they flattened out the medieval warming period.

These references you guys use are only showing less than 20% of the current interglacial period. They need to look at all of it, instead of cherry picking a convenient time to support an agenda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

But you have no problem saying you know better because it fits your bias.

You must be talking in the mirror.

 

[iguanaman]

Why are you being lazy and blind to the fact I am pointing out the studies you guys are championing only go back 2,000 years. I'm going back farther. I am pointing out that between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer. No coal plants, no SUV's etc; but warmer. I'm not claiming the last 2,000 years as wrong, though yes I see indications it can be. Especially since they flattened out the medieval warming period.

These references you guys use are only showing less than 20% of the current interglacial period. They need to look at all of it, instead of cherry picking a convenient time to support an agenda.

You make this too easy. Science knows why the northern hemisphere warmed in the Mid-holocene period and again it was not a worldwide event and it is definitely not what is causing the warming today. You have been reading at the wrong sites again.

What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

 

[Lord of Planar]

You make this too easy. Science knows why the northern hemisphere warmed in the Mid-holocene period and again it was not a worldwide event and it is definitely not what is causing the warming today. You have been reading at the wrong sites again.

What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

Yes, they specify the "norther hemisphere." I have been speaking globally. That is because the earths precession was different. Now, the southern hemisphere is getting more annual TSI than the northern hemisphere.

Please study and understand celestial mechanics, and how the earths precession, eccentricity, and obliquity affect the global insolation. Then get back with me.

The earths global insolation will increase for the next 26,000 years, assuming the sun remains stable. This is an undeniable fact! Just learn some celestial mechanics.

 

[watsup]

What am I denying? I am pointing out that what we see for warming now, also occurred during the Mid-Holocene Warm Period. What civilization did we have back then emitting enough CO2 to cause that warming, if you are going to claim that what we have now cannot be natural?

What caused the warming back then? What is causing it now? These are the questions that climate scientists study. Do you, a chatter in an online forum, have the answers to those questions?

 

[watsup]

Why are you being lazy and blind to the fact I am pointing out the studies you guys are championing only go back 2,000 years. I'm going back farther. I am pointing out that between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer. No coal plants, no SUV's etc; but warmer. I'm not claiming the last 2,000 years as wrong, though yes I see indications it can be. Especially since they flattened out the medieval warming period.

These references you guys use are only showing less than 20% of the current interglacial period. They need to look at all of it, instead of cherry picking a convenient time to support an agenda.

It's always quite hilarious when you accuse others of cherry picking since you base your entire shtick on your own cherry pickimg.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What caused the warming back then? What is causing it now? These are the questions that climate scientists study. Do you, a chatter in an online forum, have the answers to those questions?

Well, it was natural those several thousands of years back. My point is most of what we have now, could be natural, but you guys insist on denying science, and claim as fact, that we are the cause of most the warming we see today.

That is not scientific at all.

 

[watsup]

Yes, they specify the "norther hemisphere." I have been speaking globally. That is because the earths precession was different. Now, the southern hemisphere is getting more annual TSI than the northern hemisphere.

Please study and understand celestial mechanics, and how the earths precession, eccentricity, and obliquity affect the global insolation. Then get back with me.

The earths global insolation will increase for the next 26,000 years, assuming the sun remains stable. This is an undeniable fact! Just learn some celestial mechanics.

According to NASA: “
Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for thecurrent period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?

First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.”

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[watsup]

Well, it was natural those several thousands of years back. My point is most of what we have now, could be natural, but you guys insist on denying science, and claim as fact, that we are the cause of most the warming we see today.

That is not scientific at all.

More psychological projection and cherry picking. And it is not “you guys” who are making the claim but rather a plethora of climate scientists on a worldwide basis who have done research and gathered data and come to an appropriate scientific conclusion based on analysis of that information. So why are you denying the science of the experts in the field?

 

[longview]

Show me that data please.

You are the one who is claiming that the proxy data is good enough to reference modern measurements,
I am simply saying that lack the resolution to say much of anything.

 

[watsup]

You are the one who is claiming that the proxy data is good enough to reference modern measurements,
I am simply saying that lack the resolution to say much of anything.

How is proxy data derived?

 

[istodolez]

You are the one who is claiming that the proxy data is good enough to reference modern measurements,
I am simply saying that lack the resolution to say much of anything.

So do you dismiss ALL of geology and historical geology? Do you doubt radiometric dating? Just curious because these all have areas of uncertainty.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?

 

[longview]

But you have no problem saying you know better because it fits your bias.

No! Signal to noise ratios are very real things,
And would affect our ability to reference past temperatures with much accuracy.

 

[longview]

How is proxy data derived?

It sort of depends on the proxy, which one are you asking about?

 

[istodolez]

It sort of depends on the proxy, which one are you asking about?

Let's start with the one from your example. Remember your example?

 

[watsup]

It sort of depends on the proxy, which one are you asking about?

Which one are YOU talking about? How many are there that are commonly used? Are they all inaccurate?